Not just public health, but all areas of life. I like my freedom. I dont care for bureaucrats dictating what I can or cant do.

At some point they have to. Everyone has a different threshold. Where is it? For you it might be hockey or seatbelt or gun rights. Others might be alcohol, gambling or traffic laws or situations like Ohio. Of course that's a huge exaggeration! We're not talking about that, but the point is somewhere government HAS to step in a say "here's the line." They do it with alcohol, tobacco, telecom companies, broadcasting standards, driver's licence, seat belts, speeding, taxes...need I go on? Its everywhere. You're not comfortable with that, lots of us are. No individuals rights or standards are more important than any others, but at a certain point someone has to decide. Elected officials have been chosen to do that, to step in and make a decision for (what they believe) is the greater good of society. Its called democracy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by I am the Liquor

If the argument is contact (hitting) in hockey causes brain injuries, and that is not an acceptable risk, then hitting should be mandated out of the game at all levels.

I dont understand how some can say not in Pee Wee, but its ok for Bantam or whatever. That seems like an asinine argument to me.

The argument is not hitting is an unaccpetable risk. The argument is two parts:
1) There is no statistical evidence to support the belief that introducing hitting earlier reduces the rate of injuries and concussions. The belief that introducing it early teaches kids to have their head up is unsubstantiated. This speaks to "does hitting in PeeWee protect kids". The answer is a resounding No from a statistical perspective. Emotional rants and arguments have no compelling proof.

I would add that keeping your head up is a necessary skill in hockey whether there is hitting or not. Can't find the open man or open ice or five hole if you're head is in your skates. Therefore it is necessary for all kids to learn the skill of having their head up regardless of body contact.

2) Entry into adolescence is a critical period in brain development (11-13 years). When you introduce contact there is a spike in injuries and concussions. Why not give the kids as much time to develop as possible before introducing the higher risk behaviour. They're not trying to eliminate ALL risk. There just trying to protect the ones most vulnerable and most susceptible. Injury rates in Bantam are similar for kids that had contact and did not have contact in PeeWee. So why risk all those potential brain injuries for no benefit? So parents are amused?